By Asad Mirza
Finally, it seems the developed world has realised its omissions and at COP29 meeting in Baku, most western nations agreed to a new Climate Fund to save the planet from catastrophic climate changes due to harmful emissions. However, India, Malawi, Bolivia, and Nigeria have rejected the deal, terming it as insufficient.
Last week, history was made when 200 countries, most of them from the Global South were able to coerce the Global North for paying its due to Mother Earth, by agreeing to allot funds for their past omissions in the Global South, as a result of which most countries in the Global South face enormous burden on how to mitigate the negative impact of fast paced climate changes to their economies and citizens.
The world agreed to a new climate deal at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, last Saturday, with wealthy countries pledging to provide $300 billion annually by 2035 to poorer countries to help them cope with the increasingly catastrophic impacts of the climate crisis – a figure many developing countries criticised as vastly insufficient.
The agreement came after more than two weeks of bitter divisions and fractious negotiations, thrown into chaos by boycotts, political spats, and open celebrations of fossil fuels.
At times there was fear the talks would implode, as groups representing vulnerable small island states and the least-developed countries walked out of negotiations Saturday. But on Sunday, more than 30 hours after the deadline, the gavel finally went down on the agreement between nearly 200 countries.
The agreement would provide $300 billion annually by 2035, boosting rich countries’ previous commitment to provide $100 billion per year in climate finance by 2020. That earlier goal was met two years late, in 2022, and expires in 2025. The deal also lays the groundwork for next year’s climate summit, to be held in the Amazon rainforests of Brazil, where countries are meant to map out the next decade of climate action.
The summit cut to the heart of the debate over the financial responsibility of industrialised countries – whose historic use of fossil fuels has caused the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions – to compensate others for worsening damage from climate change.
It also laid bare divisions between wealthy governments constrained by tight domestic budgets and developing nations reeling from the costs of storms, floods, and droughts.
United Nations climate chief Simon Stiell acknowledged the difficult negotiations that led to the agreement but hailed the outcome as an insurance policy for humanity against global warming. “It has been a difficult journey, but we’ve delivered a deal…This deal will keep the clean energy boom growing and protect billions of lives.” Stiell said.
Collectively, nations have been so slow to curtail their use of fossil fuels that many scientists regard the 1.5-degree Celsius goal as practically unattainable.
Countries are expected to submit updated emissions-reduction pledges in the coming months, before a February 2025 deadline. All eyes are on China and the United States, the world’s top two greenhouse gas emitters, though for different reasons.
China is responsible for 30 percent of global emissions and for nearly all of the world’s growth in emissions over the past decade. The US pledge will signal the extent to which President Biden’s administration thinks its signature climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, can withstand environmental rollbacks promised by President-elect Donald Trump.
Saudi Arabia also played a highly obstructive role at the conference, according to many insiders. Reportedly, a Saudi official attempted to alter one key text without full consultation. The petro-state also tried repeatedly to remove references to the “transition away from fossil fuels” which was agreed at last year’s COP28 summit.
“It was clear from day one that Saudi Arabia and other fossil fuel-producing countries were going to do everything in their power to weaken the landmark COP28 agreement on fossil fuels. At COP29 they have deployed obstructionist tactics to dilute action on the energy transition,” said Romain Loualalen, of the pressure group Oil Change International.
At last year’s climate summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, nations acknowledged for the first time the link between fossil fuels and global warming, and agreed to “transition away” from fossil fuels by mid-century.
The agreement on finance ultimately affirmed a commitment to last year’s consensus on transitioning away from fossil fuels. But delegates rejected a separate document that, in theory, focused on the transition away from fossil fuels, but that after many rounds of editing ended up not even mentioning them.
Many negotiators and diplomats said, however, that Mr Trump’s election had also created a sense of urgency around the need to speed the transformation of increasingly interconnected economies around the world, many of which are still largely dependent on fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas.
“I think when we came in here the question was, ‘Does the US have no juice?’” said John Podesta, President Biden’s climate envoy. He said his team had been “extremely active in the negotiations” and that, “notwithstanding the president-elect’s rhetoric around calling climate change a hoax,” the United States would continue reducing its emissions over Mr Trump’s term in office.
The agreement, which is not legally binding and functions largely through diplomatic peer pressure, came after two weeks of divisive debate over who should pay and how much.
India, on its part has rejected the new $300 billion climate finance deal for the Global South. India raised the objection after the financial package had been adopted, saying that it was too little and too late.
The Head of the Indian delegation, Chandni Raina, expressed her disappointment over the outcome and said, “We are disappointed in the outcome which clearly brings out the unwillingness of the developed country parties to fulfill their responsibilities.”
“I regret to say that this document is nothing more than an optical illusion. This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face. Therefore, we oppose the adoption of this document,” she further said.
“$300 billion does not address the needs and priorities of developing countries. It is incompatible with the principle of CBDR (Common but Differentiated Responsibilities) and equity, regardless of the battle with the impact of climate change,” Raina added.
Supporting India, Nigeria said the $300 billion climate finance package was a “joke”. Malawi and Bolivia also lent support to India. (IPA Service)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
